Photoclubalpha

PMA09 可能发布的新镜:
Sony AF DT 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 (Tamron design)
Sony AF DT 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 (Tamron design)
Sony AF DT 18-55mm f/3.5-4.5 (Sony design) new kit lens
Sony AF 24-105 F4 G SSM（Sony design）
Sony AF 200/fa macro za ssm（Zeiss design）
Sony AF 600/4 G SSM（Sony design）
Sony AF 24/1.4 ZA （Zeiss design）

http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=594857" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just posted in DPR

If this is true, then it's quite a news. Woooo Hoooo, I am waiting for 24-105/f4

Thanks
Ayan

All of these lenses have been rumoured before, so the whole list seems realistic. The odd one out is the Zeiss 200mm macro, but that explains one of the mystery tele lenses in the 2007 group shot - probably an f2.8 200mm with very close focusing, sort of combination of the old 200mm Apo G Macro and the 200mm f2.8. There are three lenses there of real interest to me - 10-24, 18-270, 24-105.

It will be interesting to see if they put any of these on show at Focus, one week before PMA.

David

It's been months and months since that 24-105 f4G SSM lens user guide "accidently" got faxed too someone, it sure looked like the real thing...since then not a peep, that is a lens I hope they get right, it'll actually be an industry wide first if they do, and if they do I will break my self imposed Sony embargo and buy one ...were all waiting Sony, on the edge of our seats.
Greg

With the APS lens list, it would appear that Sony is simply trying to hold its position.

Having a look at the list of FF lens, apart from the 24 - 105 which has a general appeal it would imply that Sony is serious about the pro end of the full frame market. And if so, then Don may be about to get one of his wishes to come true. Assuming that Sony can deliver on the software.

Still nothing no F/2 primes, like 28/2, 35/2, 50/2, 85/2, at reasonable prices?

Hi David,
Why do you find these interesting? Since they have a good 18-250 and cheaper alternatives of 10-24. 18-250 and 18-270 are too close in range.

David Kilpatrick wrote: There are three lenses there of real interest to me - 10-24, 18-270, 24-105.

It will be interesting to see if they put any of these on show at Focus, one week before PMA.

David

I find 18-270 interesting because Tamron considerably improved the overall performance from 18-200 to 18-250, if they have gone further and improved it on the 18-270 - well, it will be worthwhile. And 270mm is that magic figure, over 400mm equivalent. The 10-24mm is interesting because f3.5 maximum aperture at 10mm may enable significantly better AF than the f/4.5 maximum of the 11-18mm.

Having said that, I am not likely to spending money on replacing lenses for minor advantages this year, especially as the prices will be high. It's going to be a bit tight for that.

David

Rockwell on his website reviewed the Tamron 10-24mm a few weeks ago. He thought it wasn't so good.

I found a few reviews and usage reports of the Tamron 18-270mm:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showprod ... 217/cat/23
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/superzoomtest
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tam ... p3_vc_n15/

And here is some stuff on the Tamron 10-24mm:

http://virtualentity.blogspot.com/2008/ ... sigma.html
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tamron/10-24mm.htm

I would assume the Sony version of the 18-270mm would be non-stabilised, and therefore possibly have much better centering and maybe even a slightly different internal optical formula - the potential is there to make a better non-VC lens, than the Tamron VC version.

David

i want the 300mm 2.8

and i want the 600 mm to ,,,,, if i win the lottery

greetings

gustav

David Kilpatrick wrote:I find 18-270 interesting because Tamron considerably improved the overall performance from 18-200 to 18-250, if they have gone further and improved it on the 18-270 - well, it will be worthwhile. And 270mm is that magic figure, over 400mm equivalent. The 10-24mm is interesting because f3.5 maximum aperture at 10mm may enable significantly better AF than the f/4.5 maximum of the 11-18mm.

Having said that, I am not likely to spending money on replacing lenses for minor advantages this year, especially as the prices will be high. It's going to be a bit tight for that.

David

Photozone has reviewed in canon mount.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/412-t ... 63vc_canon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Doesn't look better than 18-250 except inclusion of VC. Same CA, same sharpness.

I wouldn't think casual shooters/P&S upgraders will find any difference at all and it'll reduce 18-250 sell, unless of course if Sony is not planning to discontinue 18-250.

Thanks
Ayan

David Kilpatrick wrote:I would assume the Sony version of the 18-270mm would be non-stabilised, and therefore possibly have much better centering and maybe even a slightly different internal optical formula - the potential is there to make a better non-VC lens, than the Tamron VC version.

That would be very nice if it turns out that way. I am still amazed that my Sony 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 in a fairly light, compact package gives me a fov of 27-375mm and does it with pretty good quality. I use PTLens to take care of distortion in about 1 second so that doesn't matter so much to me. Even the f6.3 at the long end isn't so bad compared to film days since now I can easily use ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, or even higher whereas when I shot film I often shot ASA 25, 50, 64, 100, 125, 200, and sometimes 400 and I couldn't with a quick spin of the control wheel switch speed.

Rather than a slight increase at the long end giving an 18-270mm I would rather have a 17-250mm, but I suppose it is harder to do the wide end than the long end.

I don't understand why Sony would make an 18-55 kit lens. The 18-70 is about as good as entry-level kit lenses get and has a very ambitious zoom range. To really make an 18-55 attractive they'd have to fix a lot of the faults of the 18-70; metal mount, non-rotating front element, a usable focus ring, and possibly a distance scale (on an APS-C kit lens, this is pure vanity, but it sure makes it more attractive to a first-time buyer). Oh yeah, and the image quality would have to improve...it starts to sound not so much like an inexpensive kit lens. To offer something really special, let it go down to 16 or 17 mm, and then there's a real reason for the replacement.